We evaluated PCR methods for diagnosis of acute and chronic cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) in an area of Colombia where Leishmania (Viannia) is endemic. The PCR method specifically amplified whole linearized minicircle kinetoplast DNA (kDNA) of the Leishmania subgenus Viannia from biopsy lysates. PCR products were detected in agarose gels. For 255 acute cases, this PCR method had greater sensitivity (75.7%) than each conventional method, i.e., microscopic examination of Giemsa-stained lesion scraping (46.7%), biopsy culture (55.3%), aspirate culture (46.3%), and the conventional methods combined (70.2%). Among 44 cases of chronic CL, amplification of biopsy DNA was more sensitive (45.5%) than the individual (4.5 to 27.7%) and combined (27.3%) conventional methods. The detection of kDNA in biopsies from chronic lesions was enhanced by a chemiluminescent dot blot hybridization, which produced a sensitivity of 65.8% when alone and 90.9% when in combination with DNA extraction of biopsy lysates (P < 0.001). Three biopsies from 84 skin lesions of other etiologies were falsely positive by PCR (specificity, 96.4%). PCR detected kDNA more frequently in biopsies (detection level, 83.9%) than in aspirates (74.7%) from 103 cases of acute CL. Among aspirates from 53 chronic cases of CL, the alternative methods, DNA extraction and hybridization, increased sensitivity from 41.5 to 56.6% (P > 0.05). This enhanced PCR method in chronic biopsies was so much more sensitive than conventional methods that it should be considered the preferred diagnostic method for chronic CL. These findings support the appropriate incorporation of PCR into diagnostic strategies for cutaneous leishmaniasis.The leishmaniases are a group of illnesses of the skin, oral and respiratory mucosae and the reticuloendothelium caused by protozoa of the genus Leishmania. Of these, the cutaneous form is the most widespread, afflicting primarily rural and periurban populations exposed to the infected sand fly vector. Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is most frequently diagnosed by clinical evaluation, either alone or in combination with the leishmanin skin test. Clinical evaluation usually suffers from lack of standardization (13,38) and is hampered by the fact that even fairly typical acute lesions can be confused with other dermatological problems, such as sporotrichosis (9). The leishmanin skin test is highly sensitive but lacks specificity when employed in areas of endemicity because it cannot distinguish acute lesions from past infection. A definitive, laboratory diagnosis of mucosal or cutaneous leishmaniasis traditionally requires either the visualization of amastigotes or the isolation of replicative Leishmania from lesions (24). The most widely employed laboratory methods for CL are microscopic examination of lesion scrapings, biopsy impression smears, and histopathology. The most sensitive conventional diagnostic methods, culture of lesion biopsies and aspirates, are available only in reference laboratories. Even these less available, more sensitive methods ...